MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577283726 · doi:10.1506/ap.6.3.4

Regulating Canadian Financial Reporting: Issues of Endogeneity and the Coase Theorem/Réglementation de L'Information Financière au Canada: Questions D'Endogénéité et Théorème de Coase

2007· article· en· W1577283726 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel B. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoase theoremEndogeneityCapital marketMoral hazardAdverse selectionCapital (architecture)EconomicsWelfare economicsCost of capitalQuality (philosophy)AccountingBusinessTransaction costIncentiveMicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper assesses the probable outcomes of the recommendations of the Capital Markets Leadership Task Force Report, with an emphasis on corporate costs of capital. Two economic concepts indicate that the recommendations are only inputs to broader frameworks for analysis. First, endogeneity — the idea that everything is jointly determined in market equilibrium — suggests that implementing one recommendation (such as cracking down on GAAP breaches) influences the costs and benefits of implementing another (such as encouraging principles‐ as opposed to rules‐based accounting). Second, the Coase theorem — the idea that people use markets to transact around rules, blunting their intended effect — suggests that imposing additional responsibility on bodies like audit committees encourages adverse selection (less qualified individuals step forward to take the job) and moral hazard (those who do step forward are motivated to try to ameliorate lapses in reporting controls rather than disclose them). The paper then reviews the growing literature on the connection between accrual quality and costs of capital, highlighting measurement and implementation difficulties, and asserts that proper foci for regulators are ensuring that companies have the right (not minimum) costs of capital, given their financial reporting quality, and encouraging investor participation in Canada's capital markets. RÉSUMÉ L'auteur se propose d'évaluer les résultats probables des recommandations du rapport du groupe de travail d'experts sur les marchés financiers ( Capital Markets Leadership Task Force — CMLTF), en insistant sur le coût du capital pour les entreprises. Deux concepts économiques portent à conclure que ces recommandations ne sont que les intrants de cadres d'analyse plus larges. Premièrement, l'endogénéité — l'idée selon laquelle tous les facteurs qui concourent de l'intérieur à l'équilibre du marché sont reliés entre eux — semble indiquer que l'application d'une recommandation (comme les mesures visant à colmater les brèches des PCGR) influe sur les coûts et les avantages de l'application d'autres recommandations (comme la promotion de la comptabilité axée sur les principes plutôt que sur les règles). Deuxièmement, le théorème de Coase — l'idée selon laquelle les gens utilisent les marchés pour conclure des opérations en contournant les règles, dont elles atténuent ainsi l'effet visé — donne à penser que l'imposition d'une responsabilité supplémentaire à des entités comme les comités de vérification est propre à favoriser l'antisélection (les personnes les moins compétentes se portant volontaires) et le risque moral (les personnes qui se portent volontaires étant motivées par le désir d'améliorer les défaillances des contrôles de l'information plutôt que de les faire connaître). L'auteur examine ensuite les écrits de plus en plus nombreux sur le lien entre la qualité des régularisations et les coûts du capital, mettant en relief les difficultés de mesure et d'application. Il affirme qu'en visant les cibles appropriées, les autorités de réglementation auront la certitude que le coût du capital pour les entreprises est celui qui convient (et non le coût minimum), compte tenu de la qualité de leur information financière, et qu'elles encourageront la participation des investisseurs aux marchés financiers canadiens.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207